AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 337 wordsDeepak Kumar Agarwal, J
Heard on the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.216/2021 registered at Police Station Mow, District Bhind (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 324 and 326 of IPC.
As per prosecution story, on 18.08.2021 at 19.37 PM, complainant along with his son lodged report at Police Station, Mow, District Bhind (MP) to the effect that when complainant Rajaram Gole aged about 60 years along with his son Mahesh were working on the field, at that time applicant-accused Ramesh Sharma was cutting bush. When complainant objected, the applicant-accused abused him with filthy language and told that he will cut the bush. When he objected, he assaulted his son with axe which hit on his left palm and blood was oozing out. Prahlad and Dataram came on the spot and intervened. When the applicant-accused was going, he told that today you succeeded to escape and in future if he objected to cut the bushes, then he will be killed. Afterwards, complainant along with his son lodged report at Police Station Mow. On his report, a crime under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506 of IPC bearing Crime No.216/2021 was registered and Mahesh was send for medical examination. During medical examination fracture distal 1/3 rd of fibula was found and offence under Section 326 of IPC was enhanced.
It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant was innocent, he has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the case. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.
Looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.